>> ^MaxWilder:
^ Peer review is not "sitting around a table and coming to a consensus". It is looking at scientific papers and scrutinizing the methods and conclusions of the author. If the paper meets the standards set by the scientific community, it is deemed worthy of publication

Realistically, how is that much different than the process in which a group of clergy put out new dogma in the middle ages? Science is different because the predictions it makes can be replicated. I strongly advocate science--real science--science which actually goes through *all* eight steps of the scientific method, not just the first seven.

21st century "scientists" undermine science to a similar extent as creationists. What I want is a return to real science. Models, predictions, reliable information, practical information, and most importantly, reproducible results.

Peer review is susceptible to the ills of man--bias, politics, etc. It may serve some purpose, but it was never meant to be the "end" of the scientific process, as it currently is. When people talk of science, how often do you hear these statements:

"99% of scientists believe..."
"published in a number of peer reviewed journals"
"cited in over 100 papers"

and how often do you hear this:

"results replicated by several independent experimenters"

The top three are not scientific, the latter is.

He was talking about "organic foods" too, not just social sciences. And I study humanities, and it's basically all bullshit. Lots of theories, but no concrete evidence in any direction. This is what makes it different from, ahem, "real" science, where there are actual objective truths that can be found.

*promote

i read the entire discussion on her youtube page.

some random bits that i thought were interesting:

she listens to books because she is dyslexic and she has the bible and the OT on cds.

one good comment from an atheist was that the christians themselves are trying to get their views or whatever accepted as science, then they should tolerate it when real science comments back.

many people trying to point out to her that the god delusion is not a science book

the woman who made the video has two or three main answers to every critic:
- so you are an elitist atheist who follows the religion of evolution? how dare you think you are better than me!?
- only the chosen few gets the real meaning of my message, i am a chosen few.
- and the classic: where do you get your morales from?

she is planning (or has already) on making a series of videos where she debunks professor dawkins and evolution

she is well versed in, although predictably so, the "standard" christian rebuttals of science and.. you know.. reality.


what scares me most though, is how apparently willingly she dives into her ocean of ignorance. she must be using her legs to swim, because her hands are firmly over her ears.

"this is real science right here!"

your right. its not science. its called reading! try reading your own damn book for once lady.

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totaly destroy everthing that belongs to them. Do not spare; put to death men and women, CHILDREN AND INFANTS, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

infantcide, yep.

Too many people involved who dont want to stand in front of the whole world as COMPLETE idiots who only wanted money.

Please, just fucking PLEASE try to THINK for one moment, is this conspiracy really something even the most twisted, brainwashed nutters out there really could believe in? How did it get started? were they just wrong from the start?, when did they figure that out? when was the near unanimous decision not to tell the world made? Think about what you are saying here. Look at the data, look at the research, read the reports.

You so-called "skeptics" have no difficulity accepting data that matches YOUR claims, remember,like if 2008 can be measured as slightly colder than 2001, then its no problem citing the extremely credible sources, like universities full of professors, but if those same people ALSO say the trend is overwhelmingly showing that global warming is real and manmade, no lets be skeptics about that, they're only saying that because they want our taxes! its a giant conspiracy by elitists! but wait, the elitists say the Kilimanjaro melting isnt caused by global warming, Well, that IS true, right, because it costs less taxes figuring that out, right? ...Right? Or maybe not, but it costs less taxes to fix!, so Good Elitists, then.


This whole moneymaking scheme sure is pretty far-fetched. Listen, lets say a group of scientist decided to tell the "truth" then, no global warming etc, and they did "real science" to figure that out. Why wouldnt the government pay them, why wouldnt big oil-companies pay them? Isnt there JUST AS MANY reasons to make them rich for some ill-conceived agenda, why hasnt it happened on an equal or even larger scale than the people who say GW is real? Could it, by any remote possibility, be that its simply TRUE, and 99% of the REAL scientists out there are actually ON to something? Could it be?

Elitism is not a bad thing. It's not ideas it's TRUTH!

Why can't I let 1+1 = 3? Because it diminishes the human understanding of reality.

I like that you associate knowledge with homosexuality, real classy. You must love Larry the Cable-Guy.

>> ^Equilibrionist:
That guy sounds like a typical nerd/digger/elitist asshole.
gwiz665, you sound like one, too.
Even if you are right (yes, yes, we know it's truth), BUT...even if you are right, you don't need to try to force your ideas upon all others. If you do, you just look like a socially challanged queer. Yeah, you will have your truth, but what is the use, if you have no friends?



Proof is not really existent in real science, only in logic and math. It is shown to be ("proven") by the evidence. Evidence shows that the earth in fact is not flat. All evidence so far shows that Evolution happens, and the prominent theory is that it happens by means of natural selection.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there has never ever been a scientific "proof", or scientific evidence, to suggest that the earth is flat. It's all hearsay and religion.
Science is all about disproving theories; if a theory is false, it cannot hold up to evidence. But as long as a theory can support the evidence, it's the closest thing to truth that we have.

>> ^Aemaeth:
Wow, this is some very interesting arguments here. If I follow gwiz's argument, it goes something like this: earth proven not flat by science, atom proven divisible by science, evolution proven true by science. I think you're missing the point that prior to those first two being proven, scientists of the day would have said science had proven the contrary argument.

It amazes me how unscientific this program is.

I know blowing up caravans can be amusing, but I wish they'd at least attempt to explain the real science after they've tossed around doing their "experiments".

grrr!.

It kind of feels like we could go in several directions with this.

On the one hand the two men are clearly making things up as they go along, not bothering to talk with any person of science. Therefore, they never learn how the science works that produced the exhibits in the museum, and as such it all seems unfathomable to them. Also, it might be the reason leading them to misread the bible as a factual document of accurate historical events. Because after all, if the scientific explanation seems strange and farfetched, be it because of a severe lack of understanding about how science works or because of being brought up in a community that shuns the scientific method as inaccurate and downright false, wouldn't it be natural for people to instead look for answers in areas they perceive as more reliable (such as the bible in the case of these people)?

On the other hand, as I understand it a museum is a place of learning. If these people are oblivious to the real science behind the exhibits, they shouldn't be lynched for trying to correct what they see as wrong but instead be educated so that they too can understand why they are in error.
"They have no clue about how accurate it is" is what the curator said when he learns the two guides don't think carbon dating can show how old fossils are. And maybe it's their fault for not reading the plaque explaining the process, but in reality the hardest thing to do is to change a made-up mind. Regardless if it's accurate or not, if someone has made up their mind that they're right, you will need much more than a plaque to convince them.
Also (and this is just my personal experience), confrontationalism never works when trying to change someone's mind. If anything it only steels their resolve and unconsciously sets up an "us vs. them" situation, where anything and everything you say is treated not only with a healthy dose of skepticism, but with a huge chunk of mistrust aswell. This is where alot of teachers go wrong, and it could very well be why these two adult men try and teach children ignorance (I'm NOT saying that the bible is ignorance, I'm saying that teaching children that the earth is 6000 years old is spreading ignorance).

It kind of feels like we could go in several directions with this.

On the one hand the two men are clearly making things up as they go along, not bothering to talk with any person of science. Therefore, they never learn how the science works that produced the exhibits in the museum, and as such it all seems unfathomable to them. Also, it might be the reason leading them to misread the bible as a factual document of accurate historical events. Because after all, if the scientific explanation seems strange and farfetched, be it because of a severe lack of understanding about how science works or because of being brought up in a community that shuns the scientific method as inaccurate and downright false, wouldn't it be natural for people to instead look for answers in areas they perceive as more reliabe (such as the bible in the case of these people)?

On the other hand, as I understand it a museum is a place of learning. If these people are oblivious to the real science behind the exhibits, they shouldn't be lynched for trying to correct what they see as wrong but instead be educated so that they too can understand why they are in error.
"They have no clue about how accurate it is" is what the curator said when he learns the two guides don't think carbon dating can show how old fossils are. And maybe it's their fault for not reading the plaque explaining the process, but in reality the hardest thing to do is to change a made-up mind. Regardless if it's accurate or not, if someone has made up their mind that they're right, you will need much more than a plaque to convince them.
Also (and this is just my personal experience), confrontationalism never works when trying to change someone's mind. If anything it only steels their resolve and unconsciously sets up an "us vs. them" situation, where anything and everything you say is treated not only with a healthy dose of skepticism, but with a huge chunk of mistrust aswell. This is where alot of teachers go wrong, and it could very well be why these two grownup men try and teach children ignorance (I'm NOT saying that the bible is ignorance, I'm saying that teaching children that the earth is 6000 years old is trying to spread ignorance).

Okay you're right, it's way deep and this video is very alarmist.
Yes I am, yes it is, and yes it is.

Rembar could you tell us if it's true that they concluded it was all the Ames type, and if in fact this is "almost" entirely controlled by the pentagon?
It was the Ames strain (not type), although that's poor reporting on this video's part by implying that it is one of many. Although this is true, basically any lab worth its salt doing research on anthrax pathology uses the Ames strain, so that tells people precious little. And no, it is not almost entirely controlled by the Pentagon. It is under national regulation, and not anybody can get their hands on it, but it's a BSL-3 agent, not BSL-4. And that doesn't even cover the samples not held in the US.

People forget that anthrax is a bacteria. Unlike nuclear and chemical weapons, new samples of pathogenic bacteria can be grown from a small sample, and how exactly do you keep inventory of that?

The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.'(9 May 2002, New Scientist)
So it wasn't "on the street" for long.
That's what it seems like at first glance, but that conclusion is faulty. Three years of cultivation is a long, long time, especially if you're only collecting material to use in an attack, rather than trying to improve the strain's lethality or resistance to antibiotics or anything in that vein. In certain forms and methods, anthrax can be properly stored in stasis for decades, without necessity of reproduction. Thus, you could keep a sample viable for close to a century, but genetically your strain will be the same generation. In effect, this knowledge instead points to somebody doing a grow-and-throw - in simplified terms, acquiring the anthrax sample, storing it for however long, then growing some, collecting spores, and sending them, then rinsing and repeating as necessary. This means it was not specifically weaponized, contrary to what the newspapers love to tell you, nor would the actual process require very high-level knowledge of microbiology or anthrax in order to perform.

And lol, Constitutional_Patriot, cry more. I'll gladly put a silly video about breast-watching (which is both entertaining and healthy, as the video demonstrates) into my channel over something that's factually inaccurate, something you don't seem to understand as you've demonstrated a number of times that you wouldn't know real science if it bit you in the ass. Don't try to take it out on me with your little passive-aggressive downvoting. Sack up.

Yes, the science of comparing whether a person burns more calories by viewing a woman's pair of breasts than exercising belongs in his "science channel". Now that's real science, huh>?

rembar. yes please keep your standards up for your bullshit science channel, from the looks of it you have quite a bit of cleaning out to do. Your close mindedness and ignorance on the subject amazes me.

Your stance is that if one presents scientific studies that do not jibe with what your acronym associations say then it is not "real" science, your attitude my friend is the joke and an offense to the thousands of scientists worldwide who unlike yourself actually perform scientific studies on the health affects of fluoride.

Ironically if you'd actually watcheds the clip you'd learn how 'real" science has been subverted by corporate science and that the collusion between industry and government has had a stranglehold on this particular subject.

Perhaps you should explain your narrow minded thinking to Albert W. Burgstahler. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, The University of Kansas who has been the editor of FLOURIDE, a scientific journal which has published scientific studies on the detrimental affects of fluoride for over 40 years. Go ahead an email him any questions you might have regarding your confusion on the subject awburg@ku.edu Read more about the journal in one of my posts above.

By denying this clip a place in the science channel you are also denying the fact that real scientist have done real studies on the aubject showing data contrary to your reguritated views. Apparently your narrow minded opinion of what constitutes science is only those studies that you agree with.

you are the one who has lost crediblity.

Calling BULLSHIT on me? OH NOES, SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well, ok then, BATTLE ON CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL.

(Patriot, I'm sorry I won't be addressing your specific concerns in this post, but Qruel really wants to earn that Earth Badge so he can catch 'em all and get this sift back in the mecca of manhood that is the Science channel, so this one's for him but you may read along as you please and we can continue our discussion once the dust settles and the poo falls.)

Now, where was I? ALLONS-Y PIKACHU GO.

SCIENCE CHANNEL
Funny how you just happened to leave off the second part of my channel's description. Let's read that part, shall we?

"Be proud that although quality science videos are somewhat rarer to come by and harder to find, we do not play to the lowest common denominator, that rather our Science sifts are raising the bar and challenging all sifters to step up and THINK.

On a casual note, what belongs here: science-related sifts, obviously. Please be sure not to sift technology-only videos, or slightly geeky/nerdy videos. Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL.
______________________________________________

I went to the Science channel and checked out videos and comments and have had a number of instances where I require submitters to prove the worthiness of their video, and subsequently removed it from the channel. That's not our job. It's my job. You think I don't require the same certain standard for other sifts? Tell me exactly what my comment was on this Schrodinger's Cat sift. Hell, and that's even well within scientifically supported theory, rather than a theory that's been dissed and dismissed for decades. Don't tell me about how I'm running the Science channel. I would know. I RUN IT, CHRIS BROWN STYLE.

This video discusses SCIENCE, and as I stated, IT DOESN'T MATTER. There are a shitload of intelligent design apologists' videos out there that discuss SCIENCE and I sure as hell won't willingly put those religious closet-case videos on here either.

I'm reading through your post above and I see numerous NON-SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES to studies done on fluoride by BIASED WEBSITES and just happened to notice that YOU FAILED TO QUOTE ANY STUDIES YOURSELF. Copy-pasting is not exactly awe-inspiring debate, and copy-pasting sources that can't be described with words like "PEER REVIEWED" and "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" and "DIRECT PROOF" is actually not even worth debating. Come back with real sources and then maybe we can actually begin the debate proper.

I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals. And here you are again, copy-pasting from FLUORIDETRUTH911.org or whatever site it is you've found on Google.

I should NOT reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel until I really feel like it deserves to be there, and I hate to say that things don't look promising.

Now, let's take a look at two real scientific papers! I'm going to toss these out here, and you come back and analyze the data and refute the conclusions. I'm serious. You can choose to meet me on a scientifically-accepted level, or this sift can sit and watch all the real science sifts play while psychic healing videos try to get it to pay attention to them.

STUDY 1 WO MEN QU LE HAO DOU TIAN
Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

This article is gathering evidence through a metastudy of sorts in order to analyze the efficacy of community water fluoridation in preventing dental damage associated with low fluoride levels in combination with poor dental care (significant past 0.1%) while also noting that efficacy drops off due to proper fluoridation through topical application and personalized regular professional dental care. The paper goes on to suggest that suboptimal care results in a negative trending in the absence of general fluoridation.

STUDY 2 VAMOS A LEER DESU
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Now, mind you, this is a position paper from the WORLD'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PROFESSIONALS, WITH OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS REGISTERED DIETITIANS. Functional as a broadscope metastudy, the ADA took the position by announcing their support of fluoridation, noting the support of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE UNITED STATES' AGENCY FOR MONITORING DISEASE AND EFFECTING PROPER PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IN RESPONSE. The ADA notes that high doses of fluoride have typically been avoided, while also noting the organization's widespread and unanimous rejection of the theory that fluoride levels have reached toxic levels or that such levels of toxicity are even accurate. Furthermore, they note that levels of toxicity have not been well-established in comparison to demonstrable negative health effects beyond surface-level observation of the possibility of dental caries developing with rats exposed to doses many times those any community in the US receives. They outright reject the theory that high levels of fluoride, even at factors well beyond the maximum range that limits first world countries' drinking supplies, can result in complications beyond aesthetically-noticeable but healthwise insignificant dental issues, even countering with a notable upcoming experimental study on the use of even higher doses of fluoride for pre-empting the development of osteoporosis.




Now feel free to sort through this comment's combination of knowledge and bullshit that I've just dropped in a steaming pile on this sift. Oh, and watch out....it's fluoridated.

If the cave 'no longer exists,' then how do you know there was one?

I'm amazed at how much conjecture and 'consensus' is taken for science now days.

Remember this, in the time of Galileo science was absolutely positive that the universe (planets, sun, etc.) revolved around the Earth. They had the models, charts, and mathematical formulas, to prove it, and they all worked. They also had those in power fully supporting their theories as fact. The problem is, they were wrong, despite their models and complicated formulas. Today it's no different, except complicated charts and models are replaced with computer models that are just as 'without a clue' and lacking in any real science as those of old.

Science knows far too little to be able to claim 'this is how it happened' without any real cold hard scientific proof. Otherwise it's an 'educated guess' despite the number of degrees the person(s) may have and how many other scientists may agree with them (have a consensus). It still doesn't make it any more true, it's just a theory.

With that said, all of your figures and models can be fit together beautifully and 'work' flawlessly to 'prove' a point, yet you can be totally wrong anyway.

Sorry, I followed a tangent way too far, but remember that next time someone tries to tell you they know how to predict climate and what's going to happen in the next 10 years.

What's that have to do with jelly fish? I have no clue... oh yeah, they came from a cave that doesn't exist anymore.

QuadraPixel: Are you saying that all the scientific bodies mentioned in this wikipedia article that have endorsed global warming as caused by human action are only liberal organizations or are completely wrong and are operating with no evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Specifically the Dissenting statements section stating:
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

From this I take it you're saying that every scientific organization that has made a statement on global warming is not attempting to do real science and is engaged in deception?